eS
oneene,
no atatatete
ecetetece’
seote’
oe
S
ce
se
&
&
pote
ee
psoas
BE
oon!
fore:
are!
oe
ie
ros
Beate
5
o
"e
"es
ef
“e
5
5
acetal
seetecete
$0)
s
oe
estetatetete
eeatetetetateee
oaeata! wectate te tcteec nce a lee,
wetatetetecotatecee . : ctetetotececacetet
. ae :
on oot
ORNS
eetee
recete
eeaatete
62525
ene,
ros
res
o
es
sees
ox
Ke
rotore:
eco
°)
5
sont
=
eres
etees
oe
nevateceters"sseveveteneceterereneee . ° ; ococece moore : " .
ee
RR
ees
acereneronece
sesso
Bovovoceres+ | sovorerorecere’
ses
conanone
eeseceaeseee
ecesetaten
eesescetatatatet stots
ocescetatatetotatetotat
0000050,
"o's
oats
reson.
Pe
worere:
eter et
one
ne
fo! oe!
~
ronosoceneee,
ocetacetatte
30500050085 e5ees
seceaeets
tates
cosets
eeetatetens
"esece'
nee",
ote
oe
oe
acon
:
: oe
; ;
% ween
3
°, 5
nD
Re
etenonecetete
soe
s
? o
%
Sas
oceatate!
e
-
ok
oe
ones
ros
os
ron
8°
oa,
ocare
eee
%
0%
sree
eee
ecsces
ee
ae!
*
re"
°.
<
ates
3
ones
oeeee a,
sestetetstarstone®
ocatecotetel
ne
mene’,
eaeae
eases
%
oes
ee’
meee
fonovetes
stot ete’. yorerere- 0.0"
atetetetetareceracere ;
retecanatesecanesesenatesonee ees eaeetatatet
Bitetatstetate® oteretete
SHR SO
SOI
oreo
SS
atecececest
rosecececocsess
eogene,
Se
cococececeee
oreseee,
P08
ones
ee
voee
enaaee'
se
x
:
S25
fe
cocatotaven
oo!
at
yonesesenecenes
I
SO
ses
Sees
rerececene,
Netetetetetec es
e
ros
one
econo,
oretet
Poee'
Ss
oor
Ran
ces
%
. stotete % ; estas atetee eatetavetetacetece’
etotetasetetarerecerenecereneeteneterets 3 foe eat cs rotetetet : esses ‘ weeatetatatatetacacetenetee
. : eerste sicetatete te 8 rotetet os ° cree acetatotete
secatecetetecsserssesen Se) s eee 5 . 2 eeece : neeeee
# oP ete ete esos eo" Pe * rs
Lauredal #007b
Lauredalediciones.noblogs.org
Lauredalediciones@autistici.org
Faced with the meteoric ascend of in-vitro meat and its
growing acceptance among animal rights activists and
organizations, we have decided to compile in the form
of an article all of our objections to this phenomenon
labelled by the mainstream media, in a totally
complacent and uncritical way, as "the food of the
future". The purpose of this zine is exposing the reasons
why we consider in-vitro meat an inmoral and selfish
technology which isn't going to end animal explotaition,
much less speciesism, in the hope that the animal rights
activists and vegans that have bought into the idea of
in-vitro meat rethink and reflect on what they are really
supporting when they support in-vitro meat.
Note: this is a translation of 'La Estafa de la Carne In-
Vitro' (Lauredal 2019). You can find the original article (in
spanish) in the following URL:
https:/archive.org/details/carneinvitro/node/2up
WHAT'S IN-VITRO MEAT?
In-vitro meat! is a kind of meat which is obtained
through cultivating animal cells in a laboratory,
without needing to kill those animals. These cells, in a
particular nutritional environment and under specific
conditions, develop and multiply to form tissues and
muscles similar to those of actual meat. According
to Mark Post (co-founder of Mosa Meat and the first
person in the world to develop an in-vitro hamburger,
which he cooked and tried live at a press conference
in London), with a single cell sample you could pro-
duce, in theory, about 18,000 metric tons of meat (or
175 million hamburgers). This technology isn’t limited
to beef: it’s also possible to produce meat from other
species or even other animal-derived products like
milk, eggs or foie gras, as well as non-food products
like leather or silk. This technology, according to its
advocates, has the potential to replace all products
obtained through the traditional animal agriculture
industry, saving countless lives and greatly reducing
animal suffering, as well as solving food scarcity on a
global scale and stopping climate change.
Lots of institutions, blogs and animal rights acti-
vists celebrate this ambitious and laudable objective.
1. Also known as synthetic meat, lab meat, cultured meat or, as
its advocates like to call it for marketing reasons, clean meat. In
this article we will be referring to it as in-vitro meat because we
know they don't like that name.
Anima Naturalis has translated and published seve-
ral informative articles about this type of meat pro-
duction and its possibilities, including a propaganda
piece about Tyson Foods (the world’s biggest meat
producer) and its investments in cultured meat and
plant-based proteins. Other organizations like Ani-
mal Equality, Proveg International, PETA, Mercy for
Animals and the Humane League Nave also decla-
red themselves in support of in-vitro meat. Among
these, PETA is one of the most enthusiastic: they
have published various positive articles about this
topic and have been financing research since 2012
— that year they even offered $1 million to whoever
was Capable of successfully developing and com-
mercializing in-vitro chicken meat. Blogs such as
Respuestas Veganas and activists like Gary You-
rofsky and Ohad Cohen also share this optimism.
We disagree with all of them and do not share this
confidence in in-vitro meat as a good strategy for
ending animal exploitation, much less speciesism.
In this zine we'll try to explain why.
THE "CLEAN MEAT LOBBY"
Before explaining why we position ourselves aga-
inst in-vitro meat, we want to provide some context
about its more prominent advocates, known as the
“clean meat lobby.” The most staunch defenders of
in-vitro meat and the most visible faces of the lobby
are two former animal rights activists, Paul Shapiro
and Bruce Friedrich, who went from promoting ve-
ganism and advocating for the abolition of livestock
farming to collaborating and profiting financially
from the meat industry.
Paul Shapiro is the author of the book Clean Meat
and the founder of Compassion Over Killing, an or-
ganization whose goal was advocating for animal
rights and veganism, although in the early 2000s
this shifted to a more welfarist approach. In 2005
Shapiro left the organization to join the Humane So-
ciety of the United States (HSUS), a welfarist organi-
zation that has declared itself in favor of extensive
livestock farming, has collaborated with numerous
animal exploiters and has even hired a livestock far-
mer, Joe Maxwell, as Director of Rural Development
and Outreach. In addition, the HSUS created, in con-
junction with Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, an or-
ganization called Global Animal Partnership (GAP),
whose slogan is “feel good about the meat you eat”
and whose purpose is to rate and certify meat pro-
ducts based on their own scale of acceptability of
various levels of violence towards animals. After Sha-
piro left HSUS in 2018 due to several accusations of
sexual harassment (in which many other members
of the organization, like its former president Wayne
Pacelle, were involved) he publicly announced his
new company, the Better Meat Company, dedicated
to helping meat companies increase their profits by
adding plant-based proteins to their products.
Bruce Friedrich, former vice president of PETA
and former Farm Sanctuary employee, is a foun-
ding member of Farm Forward, whose mission is
to advocate for the “happy exploitation” of farmed
animals and the promotion of extensive animal
farms. In 2016 he funded a non-profit organization
called the Good Food Institute (GF), through which
he advocates and promotes “clean meat,” alongsi-
de his venture capital funds Clear Current Capital
and New Crop Capital. Friedrich is a staunch wel-
farist, raving about every time that companies like
McDonald's announce any kind of animal welfare
measure, No matter how meager.
Other notorious “clean meat” advocates include
Jason Matheny (founder of New Harvest and pio-
neer in cultured meat research), Matt Ball (president
of One Step For Animals, an organization focused on
getting people to stop eating chickens), Leah Garces
(president of Mercy for Animals and former executi-
ve director of World Farming), Miyun Park (first exe-
cutive director of GAP), Josh Balk (former member
of Compassion Over killing, current Vice President of
Farm Animal Protection at HSUS, and co-founder of
Eat Just, Inc.), and Chris Kerr (chief investment offi-
cer at New Crop Capital). All of these people are de-
fenders of the exploitation of animals. They benefit
economically from it, and denigrate and harm the
animal liberation movement, mocking vegans and
labeling abolitionists as “idealistic” and “naive.”
IN-VITRO MEAT DEPENDS ON THE
MEAT INDUSTRY AND CAPITALISM AS A WHOLE
One of the objectives in which the “clean meat” lobby
invests much effort is obtaining financial Support in
the form of investments from goverments and big
corporations, including meat industry giants. Their
goal, as we Nave already stated, is for in-vitro meat
production to replace intensive livestock farming
(extensive livestock farming doesn’t seem to be a
problem for them), but it is hard to know to what
extent they take this goal seriously, or rather if the
only thing that motivates them is profit, given their
continuous collaboration with the largest animal
exploitation companies in the world. Tyson, Perdue,
Smithfield, Cargill, Hormel ... all of these meat com-
panies are funding research and development of in-
vitro meat, but the lobby doesn’t find anything in-
consistent or conflicting in this. Bruce Friedich said
the following in a TED Talk:
“We don't want to disrupt the meat industry, we
want to transform it. We need their economies of
scale, their global supply chain, their marketing ex-
pertise and their massive consumer base.”
2.'The next global agricultural revolution | Bruce Friedrich' on
YouTube.
And in a conversation with Paul Shapiro he stated:
“Our hope is that the meat industry will be on the
forefront at this because who better to do plant-ba-
sed or clean meat chicken than Perdue and Tyson?
Who better to do a plant-based or a clean meat
spam —aren’t we excited about that? — than Hor-
mel Foods?”
In addition, Isha Datar, Executive Director at New
Harvest, wants “Tyson Foods and other meat com-
panies to be a part of this movement.”
Friedrich and his colleagues seem to believe
that the meat industry is the only sector capable
of handling this market, since it already has the in-
frastructure, marketing skills, manufacturing capa-
city, distribution chains and budget necessary to
develop it. If the in-vitro meat industry depends so
much on the traditional livestock industry, precisely
on those who are killing and exploiting billions of
animals every year, how are they going to achieve
their supposed goal of ending animal exploitation?
In our view, what they are achieving is the oppo-
3. 'Fireside chat - Bruce Friedrich and Paul Shapiro' on Youtube.
4. Shapiro, Paul: 'Clean Meat: How Growing Meat From Animals
Will Revolutionize Dinner and the World’.
site: they are ensuring the survival of the meat in-
dustry giants, since they see in-vitro meat as an op-
portunity to diversify their offerings in the so-called
“protein market,” to control their competitors and
to ensure their survival in (and dominance of) the
market. The following statements from one of Car-
gill Protein’s leaders, Brian Sikes, make it very clear
that large meat companies have no intention to
stop exploiting non-human animals:
“Our strategy Is to invest in all forms of protein [...]
Our cell-cultured protein and plant-based inves-
tments will continue to complement the $175 billion
we have invested in animal protein over the last
three years. Keeping all options on the table will help
feed people and deliver great-tasting protein to our
customers.””
Large meat companies are not concerned with in-
vitro meat because, on the one hand, it is a product
that will allow them to respond to an ever increasing
meat demand without replacing its current supply
and, on the other hand, acquiring in-vitro meat com-
panies allows them (as we have seen) to dominate
the market and get rid of their competitors. We're
5. 'Protein innovation: Cargill invests in cultured protein’,
cargill.com
already seeing this in the plant-based meat market:
meat companies keep buying plant-based meat
companies and convincing vegans that consuming
their products is perfectly ethical and consistent
with our principles, and thus obtaining, due to our
naivety, juicy economic benefits.
Apart from that, another huge problem is the dis-
proportionate faith the advocates of “clean meat”
have in capitalism and the free market: they are
completely uncritical of the economic system that
has caused and keeps causing unprecedented le-
vels of suffering, inequality and environmental
destruction. They present capitalism (the econo-
mic system that, in the last century, has annihila-
ted more than half of the non-human population
from the face of the Earth)® as the solution to all
of society’s problems, when it is precisely what has
caused them. Bruce Friedrich has stated in an in-
terview that capitalism will succeed where vega-
nism has failed (“We've tried to convince the world
to go vegan, and it has not worked”).”
To defend these claims they use deceitful argu-
ments, highlighting the few positive consequences
that capitalism has had on the welfare of certain
6. '2018 Living Planet Report'!, WWF.
7. ‘This Animal Activist Used to Get in Your Face. Now He’s
Going After Your Palate’, the New York Times.
species while minimizing and ignoring the nega-
tive consequences it has had on the hundreds of
billions of non-human animals that are treated
as mere tools for making profit. In his book, Paul
Shapiro writes about how intensive whaling ended
thanks to the kerosene lamp and, later, the Edison
light bulb. He suggests that we'll “have a greater
chance of making an impact in the for-profit fields
of technology, engineering, and entrepreneurship”
rather than with non-profit work and activism. The
truth, however, we already know: that capitalism
is an inherently exploitative and immoral system
that relies on the exploitation of others and the
objectification of human and non-human bodies
to function. The fact that on certain anecdotal oc-
casions it has led to the end of the exploitation of
certain species is an anomaly that diverts attention
from the real problem. We cannot, under any cir-
cumstances, entrust animal liberation to capitalist
corporations, much less to meat companies.
IN-VITRO MEAT ISN’T FREE
OF ANIMAL EXPLOITATION
Cultured meat is Supposed to be a product free of
animal exploitation, but is this true? Something that
its advocates don't seem too interested in talking
about — since it would contribute to their facade fa-
lling apart — is that in-vitro meat does involve some
animal exploitation, specifically two kinds:
First of all, the cells necessary to produce tissues
(which cannot be reproduced infinitely at the mo-
ment) are extracted from real animals. In-vitro meat
advocates love to say that these cells are extracted
through a painless and respectful procedure, consis-
ting of plunging alOmm long and Imm wide needle,
or even a 1Omm wide hollow cylindrical scalpel, into
the neck of an animal. But honestly, this sounds like a
joke to us. Have we forgotten that we live in a capita-
list system that prioritizes profits over well-being, dig-
nity and freedom? Is it sensible to trust corporations
to treat these animals ethically and respectfully?
Let’s remember that these same corporations spend
a great deal of time and effort trying to convince us
that the individuals they lock up in industrial farms
live bucolic lives in which they never suffer any type of
pain or discomfort. The reality of these animals lives is
far removed from that idyllic vision, since to these cor-
porations they are merely objects and property. We
have reason to believe that the same exact thing will
happen in the case of cell extraction. Even so, regard-
less of how painless the process is or isn’t, who gave
us the right to violate the bodily autonomy of these
beings? Would we think it is fair to do the same thing
to humans? It doesn’t seem fair to us.
Second, cells need avery specific environment to re-
produce and form tissues correctly. In most cases this
medium is fetal bovine serum (FBS) extracted from
the fetuses of pregnant cows after their slaughter.®
The process is as follows: first the cow is killed, then
the still-living fetus is removed from its womb and,
without any type of anesthesia (and there is eviden-
ce that the fetus can feel pain), blood is extracted di-
rectly from its heart in along and unpleasant process.
The use of FBS is, in addition to being cruel and im-
moral, an incredibly profitable business for slaughter-
houses. A single liter can cost between €300 and
€800? and, according to Mark Post, 50 liters of FBS are
needed to produce a single hamburger. They need so
much that slaughterhouses can’t possibly respond to
the demand, which leads to such a high price. Many
companies are trying to find a way to replace FBS
with plant-based alternatives, given its tremendous
cost, but so far few have managed to develop a plant-
based medium that is as convenient and works as
well as FBS. However, even if plant-based alternatives
are developed, we can’t be sure that they will be used.
For the companies and individuals involved in in-vitro
meat the problem with FBS is financial, not ethical,
so it wouldn't be surprising if they ended up solving
it the same way the Nave solved the inefficiency and
low profitability of regular meat production: produ-
cing on a massive scale and cutting expenses in all
8. 'The Gruesome Truth About Lab-Grown Meat', slate.com
9. As of March 2021, we have seen prices as high as $2,000 a liter.
possible fields — animal welfare, working conditions,
etc. The reproductive cycles of the animals exploited
in factory farms are already fully controlled, so we
don't think it’s unreasonable to think that they could
open macro-farms with the sole purpose of produ-
cing FBS on an industrial scale (or integrate FBS pro-
duction into their already existing operations).
A plant-based products company called Eat Just,
Inc. (formerly Hampton Creek) has recently jumped
on the in-vitro meat bandwagon. Its founder, Josh Te-
trick, affirms that they are currently developing cultu-
red meat 100% free of animal exploitation.
“You could get all the animal cells we need from
a feather. You just cut off the quill tip of a naturally
discarded feather, and there is all the cell structure
we need. Then we grow the product in a culture de-
veloped entirely from plant extracts. There will not
be any ‘donor herds’ nor the need for any. You could
pick up all the animal cells we need just by picking
up the shed feathers at a sanctuary.””
But actions speak louder than words. We see it all
the time with welfarism: big corporations are cons-
tantly telling us that they take the wellbeing of their
10. 8. Hampton Creek founder Tetrick pledges his “clean meat”
will be vegan', Animals 24-7.
animals seriously, but nonetheless they still exploit,
torture and murder them, as well as breaking the few
animal welfare laws that exist. Also, we don’t think Eat
Just, Inc. is exactly trustworthy, as many of its emplo-
yees have accused Josh Tetrick of lying or obscuring
the truth in their marketing campaigns and the la-
beling of their products. To us, he doesn’t seem like
the type of person you can trust. On the other hand,
even if they actually produced their in-vitro chicken
wings (or whatever they are planning) ethically, using
fallen feathers and a plant-based alternative to FBS,
have they not reached this point thanks to countless
investigations and experiments in which non-human
animals were indeed exploited and tortured? The
future in-vitro meat market is being built upon the
bodies of all the non-human animals that suffered
and died as a result of those investigations. Everyone
who researches, develops, produces, commercializes
and promotes in-vitro meat has blood on their hands,
with no exception.
IN-VITRO MEAT PERPETUATES
SPECIESISM AND MEAT CULTURE
We have already made clear that in-vitro meat ne-
cessarily entails animal exploitation (albeit to a lesser
degree than traditional livestock farming) and that
it is unlikely that it will be the key to ending animal
exploitation, due its dependence on the meat indus-
try and capitalism as a whole. But we still have to
deal with an equally important problem that would
continue to exist even if the other two didn't: in-
vitro meat perpetuates meat culture and the he-
gemonic myths that justify and normalize animal
exploitation. A major flaw in the arguments of the
in-vitro meat advocates is that they do not seem to
differentiate between the physical act of damaging
and killing an animal and the social and symbolic
act of perpetuating meat culture and speciesism.
Fetishizing the exploitation of non-human animals,
collaborating with livestock farms and presenting
meat as an oh-so-precious-and-delicate product is
also a way of harming animals, not just the act of
physically mistreating them. This is because, as sta-
ted on the Clean Meat Hoax website, “meat is not
a thing, but an idea, even a web of related ideas.
That means that when you strengthen one strand
of the web, you strengthen the whole web — the
idea of meat as a whole.”
Going back to Eat Just, Inc.: when we first publis-
hed this zine, there was a section on their website"
dedicated to promoting their next product, in-vitro
Wagyu beef (the most expensive meat in the world)
that read as follows:
Tl. It can be found (as of March 2021) in their Medium.com page:
https://medium.com/justegg/a-new-tradition-721e5039de4
“On a sprawling farm nestled in the picturesque
foothills of Mt. Akagi in Japan, the Toriyama family
has worked for more than 30 years to raise cows
whose meat has the rich, umami taste and exquisi-
te marbling that makes Wagyu unique and desired
around the world. Drawing on cutting-edge scien-
ce and a half-century of experience, the Toriyama
family has created new standards for this delicacy,
though very few have been able to try it. [...] Ultima-
tely, with a few cells from the best cows in the world,
we'll be able to bring the Toriyama family's tradition
to millions more — building a healthier, stronger and
more just food system along the way. [...] When as-
ked recently by a journalist why Toriyama is taking
this bold step to usher in a new era of more sustaina-
ble meat production, Wataru Toriyama replied: “The
point is to deliver deliciousness to everyone”
In this way, they reinforce the idea that consump-
tion of meat (and other foods of animal origin) is, as
Melanie Joy puts it, “normal, natural and necessary.”
Most in-vitro meat promotion campaigns focus on
the pleasure of eating meat, its importance to our
gastronomic cultures and how healthy it is for our
bodies. For instance, Aleph Farms, an in-vitro meat
startup from Israel, promotes its products this way:
“We grow real, delicious steak directly from cow cells
without harm to animals or the environment, so you
can enjoy the steak you love knowing you’ve made
a choice that’s better for you, and the planet. [...] We
believe meat is one of life's pleasures, to be celebra-
ted and enjoyed without the downsides to health
and the environment.” Paul Shapiro in his book des-
cribes his experience eating cultured foie gras from
Hampton Creek (now, Eat Just, Inc.): “as | closed my
eyes and let the fatty liver melt on my tongue, the
Hampton Creek foie gras brought me an amount
of pleasure I'll confess | was a little embarrassed to
admit.” Isha Data started her TED Talk with the fo-
llowing: “Hi everyone, I’m Isha Datar and | love to eat
meat. For me, meat is precious because it’s the main
feature, it defines my meals.”
These statements not only perpetuate the idea
that meat and animal derived products are pleasu-
res to be enjoyed and celebrated, but also the idea
that consuming them is necessary for us and part of
human ‘nature. As Bruce Friedrich stated in a con-
ference, “[wJhat I’ve come to realize though, is that
most people just really like eating meat. | don’t know
if it’s physical, or psychological, or emotional, but it's
true.” He also said in an interview with the New York
Times that “we need to change the meat, because
12. 'Re-Thinking Meat: Isha Datar at TEDxToronto on Youtube.
13. 'From Agitator to Innovator: Why | Swapped Activism for
Food Tech | Bruce Friedrich | TedxBethesda' en Youtube.
we aren't going to change human nature.”* Maastri-
cht University, as an explanation for its support for in-
vitro meat research, argued that “/hJumans asa race
have shown no sign of wishing to eat less meat, so it
is unrealistic to think about eradicating meat from
the human diet in the future.”” The dissemination
of these ideas defeats the efforts of anti-speciesist
activists who try to make people understand that
consuming animal derived products is cruel and un-
necessary, and that the abundance of meat in our
diets is not the result of an inherent “necessity” or
our “great appetite” for meat, but rather something
cultural, caused by speciesism, capitalism and pa-
triarchy.
Furthermore, the fact that we can even imagine
the idea of consuming meat, artificial or not, is possi-
ble thanks to the belief that non-human animals are
nothing more than our property and that the value
of their lives is directly proportional to their useful-
ness. This beliefs, apart from justifying and allowing
for the use of non-human animals in the research
and development of in-vitro meat technology (ma-
king it perfectly legal and socially acceptable to stick
needles in a non-human animal's neck, to forcefully
14. ‘This Animal Activist Used to Get in Your Face. Now He’s
Going After Your Palate’, the New York Times.
15. Shapiro, Paul: 'Clean Meat: How Growing Meat From Animals
Will Revolutionize Dinner and the World’.
impregnate them and kill them while they are preg-
nant), make us see food when we are in front of a
dead body. That too is speciesism.
In the words of Gary Francione: “if we were
dumpster diving and found a human arm that was
made from a culture of human cells, we would not
think that it was acceptable consume the arm. Why?
Because human body parts are not things to eat. We
need to start thinking in the same way about ani-
mals: the body parts of animals and products made
from animals — however produced — are not food.””®
By keeping people hooked on meat we are only per-
petuating the idea that non-human animal carcas-
ses are food. Refraining from eating animal corpses
is a matter of respect for their lives and their deaths
and a consequence of understanding that non-hu-
man animals are subjects with intrinsic value, re-
gardless of whether or not they can be of use to us,
and that they do not exist to satisfy our whims.
IN CONCLUSION
Finally, we want to ask a question: if veganism is
supposed to mean being against animal exploita-
tion and avoiding the consumption of products that
entail such exploitation as much as possible, why
are so many vegans defending in-vitro meat and
16. 'Animal Advocates Speak Out', on Cleanmeat-hoax.com
willing to consume it? Of course, this technology
is capable of producing a massive amount of meat
with very few animals, which could potentially re-
duce exploitation greatly, but we can’t begin to un-
derstand when “less animals exploited” is enough,
when we could aspire perfectly to “no animals ex-
ploited.” Isn’t universal veganism and animal agri-
culture abolition a much better goal, as it wouldn't
involve any amount of exploitation? The idea of
abolishing animal agriculture can seem idealistic
but, aren't all liberation struggles idealistic? Isn't it
by aiming high that struggles progress? We don't
think it’s an “all or nothing” situation, but a matter
of being firm in our principles and taking the path
that we believe is the fairest and most appropriate
to end speciesism and animal exploitation.
Exploiting and killing animals is not justifiable
when there is no need to: there is an immense va-
riety of alternatives to any product of animal origin,
Whatever it is. In-vitro meat is an unnecessary tech-
nology in which billions of dollars are being wasted.
It has caused and continues to cause suffering to
probably thousands of non-human animals. All that
money and effort could be invested in anti-specie-
sism education and in supporting the animal libe-
ration movement. In-vitro meat is nothing more
than a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It is,
as a Veggieboards forum user puts it, “another case
of humans trying to find the longest possible way
to get from Point A to Point B and calling it ‘pro-
gress,’ rather than taking the easiest and most logi-
cal path.” Wouldn't the resources used to research,
develop and promote in-vitro meat, as well as edu-
cate the public to trust foods produced in a labora-
tory (eliminating the “yuck factor”), be better spent
promoting veganism and the idea that non-human
animals aren't objects that we have the right to use
for our benefit? By prioritizing profit and giving so
much weight to society's caprice for eating animal
products, in-vitro meat advocates are throwing away
decades of anti-speciesist activism and helping the
movement move further away from anti-speciesism
and abolitionism towards more welfarist, compla-
cent and capitalist approaches.
SOURCES/REFERENCES
- Shapiro, Paul: ‘Clean Meat: How Growing Meat
From Animals Will Revolutionize Dinner and the
World’.
- Clean Meat Hoax: 'The Capitalist Free Market Has
Always Betrayed Animals-and It's Doing It Again’,
‘Who's Really Behind the Clean Meat Lobby: How
a Movement Was Sold Out', ‘Clean Meat Discourse
Reinforces All Meat Culture’.
- Vegan Trove: ‘The Science of “SuperMeat”. If It
Sounds Too Good To Be True, It Probably Is‘
- Youtube.com: '2019 Conscious Eating Conference -
Cell-Based Meat Debate'
- Youtube.com: 'Vegans Spill The Truth About Lab
Grown Meat (*FULL PANEL DISCUSSION*)'
socetetotone.-” cetacean eeatetoteetot eter Mereres at SK I
aceretetetete- RS sevevececocecone et . : etotececetecere
acorn’ -asaneraeroneeey SR RN Cotetetetones+s000 % socores erent % Se RRR
ovovovesocncoseeauecesecocecononecoeeeens Ses oe Peet CR COI RR
> jne.e.e.8 6.0.
esas staneconesccanecenesee eatetocecatesetotae
one
es
Reet ee ee
oot oc ec ecetene’
+ orotetetete’s
ere cavotetoneseneconeeenees eee se earetatecanecatoceseten :
os osaconeconescneronesonesonetenes sesanee estate statetetets ncstatecarecasonetonetenetenet
wavetococococecorocecacacanarec core stetete® . > 5 ote teetetorenetece
eroceeeeeeeeeseet : Se . *
essceaeseetat
SRR
oteceranen
a oee'
SS
%
otetate
rote,
oe
otatarererececeraees
SRR RD
ratetetetate
etoececene’
ste a ecestesanetateceteee
esestetan et otatere o > rosococe, Patetetatetetatet
cose: eeseeeseeeteeeeees
avatee
ots
eoatetetate
o eotetete
esetaratetett
eoecstanstatetes
easeteere sta
raPare” «ates
. 2
oveterececocers
RR RS
seereeetnnnrerercrers
ratetabatetotatetetetatetetatsterets ‘
evataatatatetatetatetatetatetatotatetatonetanets watetetetavarocetes egeronecesonere
seuocesocesocecece, ¢ eres evererereere" wototore ona oe 0.8re Ss
satotecece, x seetepececececescsesesenocccece
otoveres ° cote 5 woteteteteterereerererececococecccocerererecececccetes
ocestetatetatetotatetatetets wrerecscegesonccccecesoccseeococscoeesccecceesccucseeesrocececceesesseoceresscecesersceeg
on ovoresegeetees: seceetee o5ec tet etate Ostet ahaa atate®, OSS RRO RD
one. 08. *. 8,010.00 008 SSC 3 0n0.0-0-0.0.8-8-6. 000.008. 8.
otacerawovececonesese, ctegece eccetatatetetacenete eters
oretataracoceterece RRS ; eesesescsocecees 50
aoe
se etatetatete :
sate a ota tate oes eetee ° @ one.
ose racetatecatecetonet :
9
sete
eeeeattate
seeacetatetate
costar statetatanates
esstasneoteeeanae
vasetonens
ororeces
rotetatete
cetaretetetetetets
overecetacer cecee cess
sotetatet ett
Potetetotetetetores
wotetotecacoce
x
@
stoteracetoters:
Sotetasececececececcoes
9
soteterecetecerssecerere’
recotet S : es . cee atatetetetenesesesetenetet
severe coratetenateteceteteteneterenet 2 Riscocete Beeessssesesesssssssarensnsnens
ccareteteteconsrasetereeanaresesonen ptetotatatatetonanats oes ecesesoces pesntoesnotneeeesntseeeees
yosoconoseseso.c.e,0,ese: ocenes s Sata jeonezesese.°. Dea SD wonesese,0ce
votetetetetetecatesecace d Re avavetevererere 2 Botototarececes es
eceaeee ay eaectatet 8° . % ; 0ea0yeteeaee or oPaPatahehat a a's
ocarecota
rasegetocececorote
sestotatetetets
socerere co secece,
; see ‘ < Sehey SR
cotete : on) ‘ c orarocevareresetotetetesoret
©.0.0.8.0.6 O + O o%s*eetetet se”. x
RRR RR oe . ones cotetecececeeres
ccotecet atone 8 SSRs ; ecto resseeceecatstanee
sesorerececococon . roteteteetot ete : SR i HIN NH HD
orator etetetetatetere et etes eet erator arece 0, SN
080:
eee
sone
a
os
.
%
se
“5
rare
no
o
<5
gee
sesee
ef
oe
ote
ce
xo
one"
Se
a5
*
es weveteteteroven orate
ogee hehe! ron reesecococenes#,oc0.0.eces
see ste % rat econatetotatetet eters Sareretete
setesece arotenecece ersten econetonatconevocanes otatetetetatetotatecore stetatetetetetatete! nracetat tat aonatecetetetecee
"e See SCR RIX IH : : *eMerereren osoteresoee, eosesocese. ° "e SR PRIN RIN
mes SRR : atetetatatetotatetonnssseee
Petetatatstotatscorets
eX,
ete
"atetece
e'
ese tats
sot
"ete
fo
at
tate
tenets
ocevavareserecevevaroceres
oretatatetatetetoretecereren
5
one
ye:
ona 0'
rote.
ote
"ees
sete
re!
Pareto ne’
,
eX,
roseonc.0ce.
sesocenecee
pore.
ae
a
rere
ene
rons
5°, netatetatets
RR NICD
toteretacetetatetetecets
eet: es
es
eaten
aeatetaacatetet
a tatatetetacee
ceecatettee ose ° ectatatetete eeeseae reteset
OO er ee o.° 9 8 " >. “ ve B COO
sececeeretore’ sorocececee crotocereretororecererore orecorereroeee
SoS eee SRS
ronotete
eceteronee
eaceeatecee
S505
Rao SIX
osesegceeges
SS
eaeee
cvotetetecocon
ogocosecese: RNR
ea I OH 8 . ° eS i ones’ atetetetetat ee i
orator ete'e "eee Peter ete e' oC ere*oe' eee es e Were 'e Porete’ eo’ oe a ete eee ee otere’s’e' ere’
